Taking over sales enablement
In 2026 sales enablement moved under me, alongside product marketing. My team had supplied it for years with decks, product nurture sequences and battlecards; what it lacked was an operating model, and the first thing we wrote was the boundary between the two teams.
The boundary
If it can be wrong, it belongs to product marketing. If it can be fumbled, it belongs to enablement. Claims, positioning and competitive facts are PMM's to get right; talk tracks, timing and rep readiness are enablement's to make reliable. Every artefact has exactly one owner under that rule.
The unit of work is a register row
Enablement teams drown in documents, so the model makes the claim the unit of work: a register where every claim a rep may use carries a citation (a recorded call, a document, a benchmark) and a review date. No citation, no claim. A quarterly purge is meant to retire what nobody used.
Rituals over portals
The rituals the model sets out:
- A Monday delta: what changed in the register this week, in five lines.
- A field council: the reps who tell us which claims land and which get laughed at.
- A quarterly purge, so the register stays smaller than the sales team's patience.
Metrics we refuse to report
Content downloads and views. What the model reports instead: claims used in real calls, objections retired, time from product change to field-ready answer.
Proof
- statedFunction moved under me in 2026, folded into my 20+ person team; the operating model as written.
Every figure carries how it is known: public links open for anyone; third-party corroborates direction from an independent source; stated is internal analytics, quoted with its date, with a walkthrough available in conversation.